- these boats are not in American waters. They are in their own, or neighbouring countries waters, and are being attacked by vessels whose home waters are 1000s of km's away
- they are not being interdicted (which is illegal kidnapping anyway, see above). They are just being killed. Plain and simple.
To put your argument back to you. Latin American countries who are combating narcotics trading armed paramilitarys, who are mostly getting their arms from US supply chains. So, for example, Mexico is entitled to go into US waters, and "interdict" American-owned boats with US citizens on board? Without any kind of warrant from even the Mexican courts, much less US courts?
Your worldview is built on top of the assumptions of liberalism: international law, sovereignty determined by institutions like the UN, etc.
The people who support this are not liberals when it comes to international affairs, even if they might be (but often are not) liberals at home. They know that they're violating international law. But they don't care because they do not value international law as it is currently constructed. They see it as an unjust imposition, made up by a bunch of lawyers and diplomats, that prevents them from securing their own interests.
The trouble for these people is that politics has not been openly this way since the cold war because the position is untenable. A group that gets its power by pushing the doomsday clock is ultimately dependent on some counter force putting seconds back.
I understand what you're saying. But, I don't have any "liberal assumptions". The Gaza Holocaust has demonstrated that there really is no such thing as international law, because there's no enforcement against certain parties, because they are deemed too powerful to touch (US empire, essentially).
Note, that's not the world I like to see. It's just the world we have.
But pointing out the outright hypocrisy of certain parties actions, vis a vis international law, natural law, or even "what if we flipped the tables?", is always worthwhile (I hope). Even if it's just shouting into the wind
It’s a frequently met claim right now that the USA killing foreigners that its president deems adversaries on their boats is something unprecedented and beyond the pale, lacking necessary authorization like criminal charges and trials or declaration of war. But one of the very first foreign actions the USA did as a nascent country, still very high on all the eighteenth-century concepts of rights that inspired the American Revolution and Constitution, was send a naval force to kill a bunch of Barbary pirates with charges filed, no trial, and no formal declaration of war by Congress.
Well, we're all aware that the term "gunboat diplomacy" has been in use for centuries.
The Barbary Wars was an interesting case of how multiple naval forces were engaging in piracy etc against each other. Barbary vessels in the Med. British against US shipping (that, and press ganging sailors, was one of the public reason for the 1812 war). And, funnily enough, American privateers doing exactly the same thing to the British colonial shipping in the Caribbean (piracy plus press ganging)
In this current scenario, the only real connection would be that the US are the pirates.
> First paragraph sums it up in a nutshell, but putting aside the violence, why would a fishing boat, or some other non-illegal-operations vessel, not comply with an airplane or boat that is clearly attempting to interdict?
For one thing, the US forces aren't even attempting to “interdict”, so the question has a false implicit premise.
Second, consider if it Venezuelan government vessels or aircraft attempting to “interdict” US vessels in US or international waters on the premise that they were suspected of running arms that might be used in Venezuela.
You don't. There is such a thing as Maritime Law and this completely flouts it, it is simply extrajudicial killing by an administration on a power trip. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The USA will pay for this for decades to come.
Just for a second consider Canada bombing a US vessel that they suspect is running drugs.
If the threat is the Russian plane or ship will blow you to burning pieces if you don't, why wouldn't you? Proving a point that leaves you dead isn't usually the best course of action.
> why […] not comply with an airplane or boat that is clearly attempting to interdict?
They aren’t trying to interdict! They’re just killing people.
Just off the top of my head:
- these boats are not in American waters. They are in their own, or neighbouring countries waters, and are being attacked by vessels whose home waters are 1000s of km's away
- they are not being interdicted (which is illegal kidnapping anyway, see above). They are just being killed. Plain and simple.
To put your argument back to you. Latin American countries who are combating narcotics trading armed paramilitarys, who are mostly getting their arms from US supply chains. So, for example, Mexico is entitled to go into US waters, and "interdict" American-owned boats with US citizens on board? Without any kind of warrant from even the Mexican courts, much less US courts?
Or, scratch that. Mexico just sinks them.
Should be ok, right?
Your worldview is built on top of the assumptions of liberalism: international law, sovereignty determined by institutions like the UN, etc.
The people who support this are not liberals when it comes to international affairs, even if they might be (but often are not) liberals at home. They know that they're violating international law. But they don't care because they do not value international law as it is currently constructed. They see it as an unjust imposition, made up by a bunch of lawyers and diplomats, that prevents them from securing their own interests.
The trouble for these people is that politics has not been openly this way since the cold war because the position is untenable. A group that gets its power by pushing the doomsday clock is ultimately dependent on some counter force putting seconds back.
I understand what you're saying. But, I don't have any "liberal assumptions". The Gaza Holocaust has demonstrated that there really is no such thing as international law, because there's no enforcement against certain parties, because they are deemed too powerful to touch (US empire, essentially).
Note, that's not the world I like to see. It's just the world we have.
But pointing out the outright hypocrisy of certain parties actions, vis a vis international law, natural law, or even "what if we flipped the tables?", is always worthwhile (I hope). Even if it's just shouting into the wind
3 replies →
Well stated.
It’s a frequently met claim right now that the USA killing foreigners that its president deems adversaries on their boats is something unprecedented and beyond the pale, lacking necessary authorization like criminal charges and trials or declaration of war. But one of the very first foreign actions the USA did as a nascent country, still very high on all the eighteenth-century concepts of rights that inspired the American Revolution and Constitution, was send a naval force to kill a bunch of Barbary pirates with charges filed, no trial, and no formal declaration of war by Congress.
Well, we're all aware that the term "gunboat diplomacy" has been in use for centuries.
The Barbary Wars was an interesting case of how multiple naval forces were engaging in piracy etc against each other. Barbary vessels in the Med. British against US shipping (that, and press ganging sailors, was one of the public reason for the 1812 war). And, funnily enough, American privateers doing exactly the same thing to the British colonial shipping in the Caribbean (piracy plus press ganging)
In this current scenario, the only real connection would be that the US are the pirates.
> First paragraph sums it up in a nutshell, but putting aside the violence, why would a fishing boat, or some other non-illegal-operations vessel, not comply with an airplane or boat that is clearly attempting to interdict?
For one thing, the US forces aren't even attempting to “interdict”, so the question has a false implicit premise.
Second, consider if it Venezuelan government vessels or aircraft attempting to “interdict” US vessels in US or international waters on the premise that they were suspected of running arms that might be used in Venezuela.
"What if they did that to us?"
We have a navy precisely because people have tried to do this to us and we decided we'd rather own the water.
You don't. There is such a thing as Maritime Law and this completely flouts it, it is simply extrajudicial killing by an administration on a power trip. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The USA will pay for this for decades to come.
Just for a second consider Canada bombing a US vessel that they suspect is running drugs.
5 replies →
Yes, my point is that there is no principled justification for the behavior, it is simply unprincipled application of power and might makes right.
2 replies →
Maybe some day you might decide to just own UK intelligence.
Are they actually trying to stop them first?
Imagine I'm off the coast of Washington and a Russian plane or ship tries to stop me. Why would I comply?
If the threat is the Russian plane or ship will blow you to burning pieces if you don't, why wouldn't you? Proving a point that leaves you dead isn't usually the best course of action.
Death might be preferable to a lifetime in a Russian prison.
Yes! Absolutely yes! Comply and wait for friendlies to come to your aid.
Do you mean like the Latinos who should let ICE officers do their job peacefully ?